| Case ID |
029e93d0-4c6e-4f2a-be3a-94112e7c529b |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Suit No. 1176 of 1997 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 23, 2016 |
| Hearing Date |
Sep 27, 2016 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed the present civil suit No.1176 of 1997 on the grounds of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The court found that the issues involved in the current suit were directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit No.03 of 1977, which had been finally decided by the same court with no appeal filed by the plaintiffs. As such, the principles of res judicata applied, leading to the dismissal of the present suit. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiffs had failed to serve the mandatory statutory notice under Section 70 of the Cooperative Housing Societies Act, 1925, rendering the suit not maintainable. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit with no order as to costs. |
| Summary |
In the landmark decision rendered on December 23, 2016, the Sindh High Court adjudicated Civil Suit No. 1176 of 1997, hearing the matter from its commencement on September 27, 2016. The case, cited under 2017 SLD 1973 and 2017 CLC 800, revolved around the dispute between S.M. Yousuf and three others against the Secretary of the Government of Pakistan Ministry of Works and Rehabilitation Division, Islamabad, along with four additional respondents. Presided over by Justice Arshad Hussain Khan, the court meticulously analyzed the intricate facets of cooperative housing society regulations and the principle of res judicata.
The plaintiffs, members of the Darul Aman Cooperative Housing Society Limited, contested the allotment and subsequent lease of an amenity plot (No.19) originally granted to defendant No.5 by the Karachi Cooperative Housing Society Union Limited. The crux of the matter stemmed from an alleged unlawful re-allotment of the same plot to Mohammad Ashfaq (defendant No.4), which led to significant contention regarding possession and usage rights. The plaintiffs sought declarations of rightful ownership, injunctions against the defendants, and associated costs.
Central to the court's decision was the doctrine of res judicata, encapsulated within Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The court elucidated that the present suit was intrinsically linked to an earlier suit (No.03 of 1977), where similar issues had been conclusively adjudicated. The absence of an appeal in the earlier suit reinforced the binding nature of the initial judgment, thereby precluding the re-litigation of identical matters.
Moreover, the plaintiffs' failure to adhere to mandatory procedural requisites under Section 70 of the Cooperative Housing Societies Act, 1925, further undermined the maintainability of their suit. This statutory requirement mandated the service of written notice to the Registrar before initiating legal proceedings concerning matters affecting the business of the society. The plaintiffs' oversight in this procedural step was deemed a significant lapse, leading to the dismissal of the suit without any order on costs.
Throughout the proceedings, various legal precedents were cited to substantiate the court's stance. Notably, cases such as Khusi Muhammad and 2 others v. The Province of Punjab and Nazir Ahmad and others v. Abdullah and others were referenced to reinforce the applicability of res judicata. Additionally, the court dissected the implications of Martial Law Orders No.34 and No.89, assessing their relevance and authority in the context of property allotments and cancellations.
The decision underscored the paramount importance of adhering to procedural norms and the irrevocable nature of judicial determinations once conveyance by higher courts is established. It served as a crucial reminder to cooperative housing societies and their members about the non-recognition of repeated litigations concerning the same subject matter, thereby fostering legal certainty and stability within cooperative frameworks.
In conclusion, the Sindh High Court's judgment in Civil Suit No. 1176 of 1997 exemplifies the judiciary's role in upholding legal doctrines, ensuring procedural compliance, and maintaining the sanctity of prior judgments. The dismissal of the suit based on res judicata not only resolved the immediate dispute but also set a precedent for future cases involving similar legal questions within cooperative housing societies. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Darul Aman Cooperative Housing Society Limited,
Al-Riaz Cooperative Housing Society,
Karachi Cooperative Housing Society Union Limited,
Government of Pakistan Ministry of Works and Rehabilitation Division, Islamabad
|
| Judges |
Arshad Hussain Khan
|
| Lawyers |
Shahenshah Hussain,
S. Irtaza Hussain Zaidi,
S.M. Raza
|
| Petitioners |
3 Others,
S.M. Yousuf
|
| Respondents |
4 Others,
The Secretary, Government of Pakistan Ministry of Works and Rehabilitation Division, Islamabad
|
| Citations |
2017 SLD 1973,
2017 CLC 800
|
| Other Citations |
Khusi Muhammad and 2 others v. The province of the Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab and 2 others 1999 SCMR 1633,
Nazir Ahmad and others v. Abdullah and others 1997 SCMR 281,
Mustafa Kamal and others v. Daud Khan and others PLD 2004 SC 178,
Izzat Un-Nisa Begam and another v. Kaniz Fatima and others AIR 1916 Oudh 6,
Sri Gopal Jew Thakur through Narendra Nath Mondal v. Radha Biode Mondal and others AIR 1925 Cal 996,
P.Das Muni Reddy v. P Appa Rao AIR 1974 SC 2089,
Shankarlal Patwari v. Hiralal Murarka and others AIR 1950 PC 80,
Defence Housing Authority Lahore v. Messrs Builders and Developers (Pvt.) Ltd. and another (2015 SCMR 1799),
Muhammad Ali Memorial Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Karachi v. Syed Sibtey Hasan Kazmi (PLD 1975 Karachi 328),
Sajjad Hussain Khan and 126 others v. Muhammad Hanif Siddiqui and 3 others (1989 MLD 4250)
|
| Laws Involved |
Code of Civil Procedure,
Martial Law Order No.34,
Martial Law Order No.89,
Cooperative Housing Societies Act, 1925
|
| Sections |
Section 11,
Order VII, Rule 11,
Section 54,
Section 70,
Section 54,
Section 70,
Section 70-A
|